Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
Hydrangeans (talk | contribs) |
|||
Line 340:
::::::I believe the approach you describe as the real question follows this: [https://www-cambridge-org.wikipedialibrary.idm.oclc.org/core/journals/british-journal-for-the-history-of-science/article/decentring-the-big-picture-the-origins-of-modern-science-and-the-modern-origins-of-science/9AD334E3BECD5F742BEA6A653D825D58 "De-centring the ‘big picture’: The Origins of Modern Science and the modern origins of science"] i linked in the older thread. That sounds to me appropriate for a global encyclopedia. But what we have here is a critique of Western science, and so {{tq|Ecosystem management is a multifaceted and holistic approach to natural resource management. It incorporates both science and traditional ecological knowledge to collect data from long term measures that science cannot.}} Science can't do that? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 05:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::::As that paragraph in [[traditional ecological knowledge]] isn't footnoted, it's hard to judge whether it hews to sources and to which sources or not. What I do notice is that the apparently main article, [[ecosystem management]], seems to describe the practice's relationship to science differently: {{tq|ecosystem management is guided by ecological science to ensure the long-term sustainability of ecosystem services}}.{{pb}}As for the question whether science can or can't do X, that answer would depend on what relevant reliable sources say about the topic, and what is meant by 'science' in those sources (science as practiced at a specific moment in time? scientism? specific hegemonically influential scientific institutions?).{{pb}}In any case, the question of what Wikipedia should do, broadly speaking comes down to simply that Wikipedia should cite and summarize relevant reliable sources. [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] ([[She (pronoun)|she/her]] | [[User talk:Hydrangeans#top|talk]] | [[Special:Contributions/Hydrangeans|edits]]) 08:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
:::::To me this seems more like an NPOV issue than a FRINGE issue. As [[User:Hydrangeans|Hydrangeans]] said, if these fields are discussed in reliable sources (and they are) then we can and should have articles. The problem is that "decolonisation of X" is often a fig leaf for tearing X to shreds, and we shouldn't write our articles from that kind of "in-universe" perspective. Based on a glance at the first couple of articles mentioned, it looks like they lean that way, but this isn't my field so I don't think I'm the one to edit it. As for the comment that Indigenous peoples have been victims of colonisation while UFO believers have not: Perhaps that's why university presses give them a pass, but we shouldn't. One's level of privilege has ''zero'' bearing on the validity of their ontology. If a Holocaust survivor tells me climate change is a government hoax, they are ''wrong''. We would thus be taking sides with an article, say, on "Survivors' views of climate change" that reports uncritically that climate change is an anti-Zionist scheme to ruin Israel, or whatever. [[User:WeirdNAnnoyed|WeirdNAnnoyed]] ([[User talk:WeirdNAnnoyed|talk]]) 11:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
| |||
